East-West dialogue is meaningless while inequalities in power skew the balance between the two sides, writes Hassan Nafaa* Efforts to hold an intercultural dialogue between Arabs and Europeans have been going on for some time now. Endless seminars and conferences were held. The latest of those was the "Intercultural Encounters on the Shores of the Mediterranean, the Alchemy of an Uninterrupted Dialogue", held in the Paris UNESCO headquarters on 4-5 December 2008. The event was part of the Arabia Plan, coordinated by Oman's UNESCO delegate Moussa bin Jaafar. For myself, I am not sure we can discuss the dialogue of cultures in isolation of the existing structures of power. This is what I said in a paper I presented at the abovementioned conference. Can such a dialogue be fruitful while power is so unevenly distributed in today's world? In my attempt to answer that question, I suggest that we look into four phases of cultural interaction between Arabs and Europeans. The first phase is when the balance of power was tilted in the Arabs' favour during the Middle Ages. The second phase is when the balance of power was in Europe's favour, from the Renaissance through colonialist times. The third phase is that of national liberation movements, at a time when the international system was mainly bipolar. The fourth phase is that of the post-Cold War era, when the US tried via globalisation to make the world its playground. Let's discuss the first phase. In the Middle Ages -- that is, from the rise of Islam in the seventh century until the Ottoman conquests of the 16th century -- Arab civilisation was predominant. The Islamic empire, encompassing parts of the northern Mediterranean, had no equal. The interaction between Arabs and Europeans in this phase was not always peaceful. Conflict and frictions were common. But the overall balance of power was tilted in the Arabs' favour, even during the Crusades. The Crusaders came in nine waves, all with the support of the church, aiming to seize Jerusalem and roll back the forces of Islam. It wasn't until the Egyptians captured Louis IX, the king of France who was leading the seventh Crusade in person, that the Crusades lost steam. During the Crusades, the Arabs and Europeans seemed equal on cultural and political terms. But this was mostly an illusion. The Arabs were significantly ahead and the Europeans had much to learn from Arab and Muslim scientists. Historians agree that interaction between the Arabs and Europe happened across three channels: Andalusia, Sicily and the Crusades. Arab knowledge moved on from Sicily to Italy, from Andalusia to Spain, and onward to France and the rest of Europe. During the Crusades, the Europeans copied, and stole, what they could of the rich Arab heritage they encountered. It is a matter of common knowledge that Europe rediscovered Greek heritage through Arabic translation. Arab scholars were not just copying the knowledge they received, but invented new fields of knowledge, such as algebra. They brought sophistication to the much older disciplines of medicine, engineering, astronomy and surgery. Arab books in medicine, engineering, and astronomy were an essential read in major European universities until the middle of the 17th century. Cultural interaction that prevailed in Andalusia under Arab rule remains a unique model of tolerance to this day. As Europe was taking its first steps into the Renaissance, the Ottomans pushed into east and central Europe. But by that time, the shoe was on the other foot. The Ottomans were not bringing revival to Europe. Europe was embarking on a period of discovery that culminated in the industrial revolution. Europe had learned a useful lesson from the Crusades. It learned, in particular, that head-on confrontation with Muslims is bound to be costly. Therefore, Europe started changing its methods, replacing armies with missionaries. Admittedly, the missionaries gave a boost to education in the Arab world. But they also paved the way for the "Orientalists" who were too soon to act as the intellectual spearhead for colonisation. Europe waited for the right time to strike at the Ottoman Empire. Since then, it did all it could to preclude the rise of a strong Arab or Muslim power in the region. In the 19th century, European powers sided with Istanbul in an effort to clip the rising power of Mohamed Ali, Egypt's ambitious ruler. A moderniser and visionary, Mohamed Ali sent numerous scientific missions to Europe. His grandson, Ismail, came close to giving the country a full-fledged democratic system. But Europe didn't like that. Determined to stamp out any attempt at modernisation in the region, Europe ousted Ismail, replacing him with his son -- the despotic Tawfiq. Europe played on the differences between the Arabs and the Turks, hoping to weaken both. During World War I, it encouraged the Arabs to rise in revolt against the Turks. Then it deceived the Arabs and divided their countries into protectorates in the Sykes- Picot Agreement of 1916. One can safely state that much of British and European support to the Zionist project is the desire to preclude the creation of a strong Arab or Islamic nation. Then national liberation became the fashion. With Europe in tatters following two world wars in quick succession, and with two major powers coming into existence outside Europe, national liberation movements saw their chance. Through a variety of peaceful and violent means, national liberation movements managed to obtain political independence, if only in name. The elites that came to power in the Arab world had every desire to modernise their countries, and they certainly sent students to study abroad and did much to expand the scope of education. But those elites failed to address some of the structural problems caused by the colonial period, such as economic dependency and the question of national identity. As the conflict with Israel dragged on, military juntas found their way to power in one Arab country after another. Consequently, Arab nations found themselves caught between tyranny at home and foreign ambitions abroad, which put a brake on the pace of modernisation and reform. To make things worse, the best minds of Arab countries decided to stay and work in the West -- the so-called "brain drain". Following the end of the Cold War, the US tried to bring the entire world under its domination, using the forces of globalisation to spread its values and way of life. The Arab world, with its extraordinary geographical location, immense oil resources and political weakness, was particularly vulnerable, especially after 9/11 when the necons of the Bush administration waged an extensive bid to control the region. The consequences were tragic. The war on Iraq claimed more than a million dead and many others wounded and displaced. The unjust blockade on the Palestinians is still in place. I find it difficult to speak about a cultural dialogue between the Arabs and the Europeans while the balance of power between the two is so tilted. One cannot promote interaction and dialogue when domination is the name of the game. Dialogue should take place among equals. Dialogue should take place among those who believe that each culture has something to offer. A true inter-cultural dialogue is only possible in a multilateral and even-handed global system. Until such a system exists, dialogue is unlikely to bear fruit. * The writer is secretary-general of the Arab Thought Forum, Amman, Jordan.
